Nigel Dodds: As the elected Democratic Unionist representatives of those areas, the Government will be aware of our commitment to their social and economic betterment. Does the Minister accept that the main issues are better housing, sustainable employment and a focus on education from the earliest age right through to adulthood, all of which must be tackled as part of a strategic plan? It must, however, be properly resourced and funded. That is the challenge for the Government.

Tony Blair: Of course there will be difficulties with gas prices, because of the cold winter we are likely to have. The energy suppliers have made it clear that they are doing their level best to ensure that demand is properly met. There is not, as far as we are aware, a problem for domestic users. There is a problem for high-level industry users, but the only way to deal with that is to ensure that the industry can meet as much demand as possible from abroad. On the whole, industry prices for domestic consumers in the UK are way below the European Union average. We are not the only country with the problem, but it is not a problem that lies within the remit of Government to resolve.

Michael Howard: Now we know that when this Government give guarantees, they last roughly four weeks. The Leader of the House also said that Government would plan and prepare for this winter, but the Government commissioned studies on gas supplies for large manufacturers only two weeks ago. Why has it taken until November—when winter has already arrived, gas prices are almost five times higher than they were a month ago and manufacturers have been forced to switch from gas to oil to generate electricity—to find out whether business can cope this winter? Should not that have been done months ago?

Tony Blair: I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously suggests that we should have a planned economy, in which the Government buy in—[Interruption.] Perhaps that is what he is suggesting. Let me just tell him the facts. UK energy prices—[Interruption.] Well, this is a rather strange situation. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that the Government should buy in energy from abroad. The Government work with the industry to ensure that it can meet demand. I repeat the fact that UK prices are actually the cheapest in the European Union and UK domestic prices are 40 per cent. below the European Union median. It is true that there will be an extra £10 billion of investment in additional energy supply, but it is not something that Government on their own can resolve.

Tony Blair: Well, I do not know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting, other than points that seem absolutely absurd. We are doing our level best to make sure, for example, that we have additional infrastructure that allows us to import more energy. That we are doing, but what we cannot do—even this Government—is affect the current situation in the energy market, which is a product of all the reasons that we know about and which, I repeat, Government alone cannot resolve.

Tony Blair: As my hon. Friend says, it is important that we see, in a considered way, what more can be done. As he knows, since January 2004 anyone convicted of possession of an illegal firearm receives a mandatory five-year minimum sentence. Measures under the Violent Crime Reduction Bill will ban the sale, manufacture or import of realistic imitation firearms. The new Serious Organised Crime Agency, will come into effect next April. With the agency, we are looking at the additional measures necessary to deal with organised crime. With organised crime, as we have done with antisocial behaviour in a completely different context, there will be a need for special and particular measures to deal with a very brutal new type of organised criminal gang that operates not just in this country but in other countries as well. We shall come back to the House with such proposals when we can.

John Hemming: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Will he confirm that on Saturday 93 GWh were taken from medium storage and 393 GWh from long-term storage; on Sunday 138 GWh were taken from medium storage and 469 from long-term storage; and on Monday 231 GWh were taken from medium storage and 496 GWh from long-term storage, which has maxed out at that rate? At that rate of withdrawal, we could breach the safety monitors during winter. At what point will the Secretary of State be concerned if that continues?

Malcolm Wicks: Of course I will meet my hon. Friend's colleagues from industry. Since the spring, we have met intensive users of energy and their representative bodies. Most of business buys gas in the normal way, as do domestic customers. Globally, prices for energy are rising, often linked to the price of a barrel of oil. However, our prices are often lower than the median in the rest of the European Union. That is the fact. The particular problem is with the intensive users of energy, who use gas as the feedstuff for producing chemicals, for example. They—not the Government—have chosen to buy on the spot market. It is one private company signing a contract with another, and they are suffering from very high prices. We are concerned about that and we are working with them, but as was said during Prime Minister's questions, the market is a liberal, commercial, privatised market in which judgments are made by private companies. We do not need someone posing as a shadow Stalinist Minister of Power saying that the Government should take command. To put the matter in context, the companies in question, although important British industries, represent 0.2 per cent. of companies that use gas and 0.05 per cent. of all companies in the UK. I am not complacent, but we have to put the present concerns in an intelligent and factual context.

Robert Smith: The Minister said that his first priority is the elderly, so with the increased prices for energy, how many more people will suffer fuel poverty this winter compared with last winter? Will he emphasise the important lesson that we must improve energy efficiency and the housing stock so that people can keep warm in their houses and make best use of their energy?
	Next Thursday, the Minister will chair the Energy Council of Europe. How does he plan to deal with what the European Commission has identified as serious malfunctions in the European energy market? While we are connected as a liberalised market to a malfunctioning market there are serious concerns about the way in which the latter market will impact on our market. What progress does he plan to make next Thursday in sorting out that market? He has held meetings with representatives from industry and UK continental shelf operations, but what meetings has he had with the Environment Agency to ensure that there is minimal impact on the environment and that we maximise the economic benefits this winter? Finally, while there are arguments about our relative position in Europe, the reality is that prices are going up this winter, which is a serious concern for the economy, especially for those parts that may be shut down.

Michael Weir: The Minister will understand that we in Scotland find it extraordinary that there is a gas shortage and rocketing prices, when we produce eight times the amount that we consume—indeed, land at St. Fergus alone six times what we consume. He mentioned infrastructure, but does he accept that much of the problem in the UK as a whole with supply and rising spot prices is due to the lack of investment in the pipeline system over many years, leading to a lack of flexibility and capacity for storage to meet periods of exceptional demand? He spoke about improvements in infrastructure, but when can we go back to manufacturers in our constituencies and tell them that there is no chance of interrupted gas supplies in the future?

Malcolm Wicks: The Prime Minister has recently talked about energy and energy strategy as an important component of the European debate, so he needs no reminding about the importance of that. I have acknowledged and talked about what needs to be done in terms of ensuring fair competition across Europe. We believe that liberalisation—an end to monopolies—is not only good for the UK consumer, but, critically, is also important for the German consumer, business and domestic, as well as elsewhere in Europe. That is why we are driving this forward.
	One has to keep reminding the House that the interconnector is a matter for private enterprise; it was not built by the state or the EU, but by entrepreneurs with their money so they make the decisions about it. Nevertheless, I am advised that on a daily basis at the moment—these are bound to be average figures that will vary from day to day—some 25 to 30 million cu m of gas are flowing through the interconnector to Great Britain.

Laurence Robertson: The Minister has accused Opposition Members of scaremongering about the prospect of cuts in the gas supply. May I therefore direct him to the comments made by the hon. and learned Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), a former Minister with responsibility for energy, in January 2005 in Westminster Hall, when he said that gas supplies could indeed run short if there were a cold snap this winter, or next winter? Will he take time to familiarise himself with those remarks, and perhaps look into what the hon. and learned Gentleman meant by that?

Peter Hain: The name of the Home Secretary appears on the Bill as one of its sponsors, along with my name.
	Clause 18 establishes the special prosecutor, who will bring prosecutions in the special tribunal. The special prosecutor will also have responsibility for liaising with victims to ensure that they are properly informed of the progress of cases which reach that stage. Further details are in schedule 6.
	Clauses 19 to 27 contain ancillary provisions, which include protections for information provided to the certification commissioner and the power to suspend and repeal provisions of the scheme. Of course, I would prefer it if the normal processes of the criminal law could be applied in all those cases, but those who are outside Northern Ireland will not return on that basis.

Peter Hain: I can explain very simply why. I do not want this process to jam up the existing courts. [Interruption.] If I am allowed to answer the hon. Gentleman's point, I do not think that it would right—and I do not think that the citizens of Northern Ireland think that it would be right—to obstruct the timing and momentum of the normal criminal proceedings that are going through our Crown courts, possibly including cases following the Good Friday agreement. That is why we set up the parallel procedure.

Nigel Dodds: Can the Secretary of State confirm that, under the special procedure, the defendant does not have to turn up, that it may well be that their details will not be made known to anyone—the anonymity provisions can apply—and that they will be able to get to legal aid as well? So the defendant will not have to turn up and they will be anonymous, but can he confirm whether they can get legal aid to fight those cases?

Peter Hain: If people are eligible for legal aid, of course, they will get legal aid, but they must be eligible for it. I have already explained the processes involved in the procedure—[Interruption]—and I repeat that there is no prospect at all of bringing on-the-runs to justice if we do not proceed with the process.
	In an intervention in the recent debate on the renewal of aspects of the prevention of terrorism legislation, the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said:
	"Either things are not good in Northern Ireland or else things are good in Northern Ireland"—[Official Report, 31 October 2005; Vol. 438, c. 630.]
	He suggests that it is a case of paradise or perdition. I do not agree with that stark either/or analysis. Things are immensely better in Northern Ireland than they were—nobody contests that—but, of course, that is not good enough.
	The reality is that we are coming to the end of a long period of transition in Northern Ireland that began with the ceasefires of the early 1990s and the negotiations conducted, including with the IRA, by the then Conservative Government. However, we will only get to that end once all the outstanding issues are resolved: the issue that we are discussing today; Sinn Fein's unequivocal endorsement and support for policing arrangements; an end to all paramilitary activity and criminality, by all paramilitary groups—the UDA, UVF, LVF and the dissident republicans included. Then stable and inclusive institutions can be restored and the promise of the agreement can be realised.

Peter Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue and seeking clarification. He brought Billy Wright's father, David Wright, with him to see me, and I was able to hear Mr. Wright's views that he did not want the inquiry converted as Lord MacLean, the presiding judge, has requested of me. I looked into this in great detail and sought to take careful account of all the relevant factors and to arrive at a reasoned decision. David Wright has suffered grievously—he is another victim—and I was very impressed with the strength of his conviction and his demeanour at that meeting.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman and Mr. Wright will be reassured by the fact that Lord MacLean and I strongly share their wish that the full facts in relation to the murder of Billy Wright should be established. It is Lord MacLean's belief that the conversion is necessary for the inquiry to be as thorough and effective as possible. He will do all that he can to ensure that the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman, Mr. David Wright and the family about the conduct of the inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 are addressed.
	I, too, am only interested in finding out the truth about what happened. I can promise the hon. Gentleman and, through him, David Wright that the Government will fully co-operate with the inquiry. We will not seek to limit its scope or to withhold material from it. I can also assure him that I have no present intention to issue a restriction notice with regard to the Billy Wright inquiry.
	The decision to propose the Bill was not taken lightly. I therefore do not commend it to the House with a spring in my step, but because I firmly believe that it is an absolutely essential part of the process of Northern Ireland not being trapped in a past of horror and violence, but looking to a future where there are no victims any more, where every child has the best start and every citizen can walk out from under the shadow of fear, intimidation and brutality.

Peter Hain: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and sympathise with it in many respects. However, will he table an amendment to the Bill to remove—[Interruption.] No, I want the hon. Gentleman to answer this specific question: will he try to ensure that if members of the security forces are charged—and only if they are charged—they will not be able avail themselves of the special court procedure? Is that his party's policy?

David Lidington: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) explained, the problem is that we have a piece of legislation that has been drafted for one purpose, but to which has been added the possible cases of servicemen and police officers. That is the wrong way to proceed.

David Lidington: I am afraid that the truth is that a deal was made—I suspect between the Prime Minister and the leaders of IRA-Sinn Fein—and successive Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland have been lumbered with a poisonous inheritance, with the parcel unfortunately landing in the lap of the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain).
	It has been argued that the legislation is inextricably linked to getting the IRA to end its terrorist war and to enabling Northern Ireland to return to what the rest of us in Great Britain would regard as normality. The Secretary of State referred to the significance of the IRA's statement in July and its decommissioning announcement in September. His article in The Times yesterday contained a similar reference. I agree that both initiatives were important and welcome. My party and I want the republican movement to complete—at last, belatedly—the much-promised transition from terrorism to democratic and peaceful politics, but I also want to be confident that that process is permanent and irreversible. I think that after three decades of killing and bombing, we are entitled to test the IRA's good intentions over a period of time before accepting that they can be trusted.
	Only 12 months ago Sinn Fein-IRA were talking to the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) about a new agreement on power sharing, while at the same time, we now know, they were plotting the raid on the Northern bank. Progress has been made—I go along with the Secretary of State that far—but the trouble is that the right hon. Gentleman and his fellow Ministers entertain none of the reservations on which other observers insist. Let us look at what has been said by the Independent Monitoring Commission, which is charged by Parliament and Government with examining how the paramilitary groups are complying with their undertakings. The most recent IMC report, published in October this year, states that
	"it is too early to be drawing firm conclusions about possible overall changes in behaviour"
	on the part of IRA-Sinn Fein. It also remarks that
	"the leadership of the republican movement has shown a capacity in the past to turn on and off the tap of violence."
	The language employed by the IMC echoes accurately remarks made earlier this year in the Dail by the Taoiseach.
	We still have no commitment by Sinn Fein to support the police, nor any recognition of the legitimacy of the courts. The murderers of Robert McCartney have not been turned in; instead, his sisters have been driven from their homes by intimidation. Others exiled from Northern Ireland over the years by paramilitary threats are still unable to return home.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes a compelling point. The process in the Bill is not one known to any court in the United Kingdom. Once a certificate has been granted, the defendant is immune from arrest or detention and the tribunal will have no power to set bail or to impose bail conditions. A terrorist could therefore return to live in the next street or next door to the victim whom he has wronged. The police will have no power to enter premises or to search either people or property and they will have no power to take fingerprints or samples. Even evidence that the perpetrator gives about himself in order to obtain a certificate is, in the Bill, explicitly made inadmissible in any proceedings before the tribunal. In practice, once someone has got a certificate, no effective further investigation can take place. As my hon. Friend points out, the rules seem to have been drafted to provide the smallest possible chance that any case before the tribunal will end in a verdict of guilty. That is a travesty of both judicial process and the rule of law.

David Lidington: I can only speculate. Given that I do not believe that the logistical argument about court business has any weight, I conclude that the reason is to do with pandering to the reluctance of Sinn Fein-IRA to recognise the courts—to recognise British justice and the legitimacy of the courts of the United Kingdom operating in Northern Ireland.
	The Secretary of State made great play of the fact someone who is convicted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment under the special measures would be released only on licence. There is a crucial difference, however, between that provision and the 1998 legislation. In 1998, to be eligible for early release someone had to serve a minimum term. A fixed-term prisoner had to serve at least a third of his sentence before qualifying, and a lifer two-thirds of his expected term. Under the Bill, even if someone commits a serious crime that is unconnected with terrorism—to pluck an example at random, let us take someone who is convicted of a bank robbery—he will not forfeit his licence or have it revoked unless he receives a prison sentence of five years or more. That is a serious gap in the licensing arrangements.

David Lidington: The hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced lawyer, makes a good point that we look forward to pursuing on Report and in Committee.
	The lack of any obligation on the defendant to appear in person is of more than just procedural importance. The Government have consistently said that they have tried to put the interests of victims at the heart of the Bill, but the Bill denies those victims even the symbolic justice of seeing the terrorist who has perpetrated wrongs against them appear in court in person, either to own up publicly to what he has done or to have responsibility imposed on him by the judgment and subsequent sentence of the court. The House should insist that to bring about peace with justice in Northern Ireland, terrorists and paramilitary organisations should bring themselves within the rule of law. The Bill, however, sets aside the rule of law and proper process to implement a back-stairs political deal. Far from bringing about truth and reconciliation, I fear that it will conceal the truth and prolong the bitterness and grief of families who have already endured years of suffering. It is counter-productive and plain wrong.
	I hope that the Secretary of State, having listened to what has been said by Members from all parts of the House, may yet pause. I hope that the House will tell him tonight that it wants him to take the Bill back and think again.

Paul Murphy: Yes, I was. I was coming to that in a moment. Part of the difference between what happened in 1998, when the people of Ireland voted for the Good Friday agreement, including the release of paramilitary prisoners, and the situation later was, as I said, that the context was very different. However, there is no doubt that at Weston Park in 2001, the issue was discussed. I was not part of that at the time, but two years later, in 2003, when the joint declaration was published after a long period of negotiations and discussions at Hillsborough castle, it appeared in the public domain. It did not form part of the main joint declaration because there was no agreement on it, but it was out there in public. So it is no real surprise to us all, although perhaps some of the details might be different, that the principle of the Bill was out there in the open.

Tobias Ellwood: The right hon. Gentleman talks about long-term prosperity. Is he not concerned about one of the remarks that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) made to the Secretary of State, when it was implied that this measure is a condition of disarmament, and that unless it goes through the peace process could be ruined?

Lembit �pik: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I hope that the Minister in his summation will explain in what exactly the defendants can expect to participate if they are not involved in the most important element in the eyes of the victimsa personal appearance in court.
	In addition, and connected to my hon. Friend's comments, if justice is not seen to be done, the Government send hopelessly mixed messages to terrorists of the past and vigilantes of the present and future. Again, the Government provide an extraordinary defence of the non-use of courts. The Secretary of StateI appreciate that he needed to leave to meet some relatives of victimssaid that he did not want the process to jam up existing courts. However, did not the same Government repeatedly tell us that the number of on-the-runs was relatively small? In that case, why would the process jam up the courts?
	If the Government regard the courts as jammed up by the process, what exactly is the legal system in Northern Ireland for? There is no more important subject to the relatives of the victims nor those who cherish the rule of law than the trial of people who escaped justice for some of the most atrocious terrorist offences. If the best that the Government can do is tell us that they are worried that the courts will be jammed, I challenge the Minister to state the more important cases to which we must give way.

Ian Paisley: The Bill flies in the face of justice. It is about excuses for crimes, some heinous.
	The Bill is fundamentally flawed. It is an attack on some of the most basic elements of justice and yet again demonstrates that the Government are prepared to enthrone expediency and dethrone principle. That is what is happening in the House today. I never thought that I would be a Member of the British House of Commons discussing such a Bill from any Government.
	Recently, the whole of the United Kingdom was recently talking about the 90-day amendment, which was not accepted by the House, yet while Members who voted against the amendment were being impaled because they were soft on terrorism, the Government were issuing a Bill that characteristically is a complete sell-out of the British justice system. If the Bill goes through, we shall set up two systems of justice: one on which there is the light of democracy, liberty and law; while the other is a court that has on it the fingermarks of the IRA.
	The Bill has been drawn up to give the IRA what it wanted. How happy I am that I took no part in all the conferences that have been described. The more that I am told of those conferences, the more I say, Thank God, I was not there, but some today who criticised us for not going to those conferences have indicted some of the talks that took place. When hon. Members look at it, they will remember that the people of Northern Ireland were being deceived. Indeed, the Prime Minister came to Northern Ireland and put up on the wallhe became a graffiti writerall the good things that would come from the Anglo-Irish agreement, but he did not tell us the things that the people who sat around the table knew, and those things have been declared today.
	I have heard many criticisms of those who did not go with the Anglo-Irish agreement, but today the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland do not go with the agreement. The Government never told them that they could have another opportunity to express their wishes. Oh no, everything was done to proceed along a path that the people did not want to go down. That is why there is a distinct change in the representation from Northern Ireland. That is why there is a difference among Unionists in Northern Ireland today. We have come to the position where we must stand up for the basics of our British heritage. We must stand up for courts that are courts. We must stand up for justice that is justice. We must stand up for those elementary rights that are the basics of the British constitution.
	When we come to what took place, we remember all the arguments that took place at the time. A senior Irish Government source said:
	Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble's scathing portrayal of a proposed amnesty for fugitive paramilitaries as the last straw for unionists is deeply disingenuous. The UUP leader they point out was a participant at the Weston Park talks last summer when the principle of an amnesty for on the runs paramilitaries was approved by the Irish and British governments and Trimble was fully aware of the agreement and its implications at the time the document was drawn up.
	Yet he was busy denying throughout the country that he had any knowledge of it. In fact, the former deputy leader of the party of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) at that time, Mr. Mallon, said:
	Is the hon. Gentleman telling me that the leader of his party
	the Unionist party, as he was addressing a Unionist Member of Parliament
	sat through seven months of negotiations that produced a document called the joint declaration which he did not see?[Official Report, 12 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 121.]
	So there was a conspiracy to keep from the people of Northern Ireland what those at the talks were really discussing.
	How very different it was at Leeds castle. I was called in one nightit was almost after midnightand I was told what I must do by the others. I said, I'm not doing it. I'm going now to my bed. I called all my people out, and I said, If you want to see me, Mr. Prime Minister, I'll be here at 7 o'clock in the morning. If you don't want to see me, I don't care. I'm not bending my knee to you. I represent people! Those people put me where I am, and I am going to keep my faith. When I leave politics, no Ulsterman or woman, whether Unionist or nationalist, will look me in the face and say that I did not keep the word that I pledged to my people. And I left, and when I got back, the Prime Minister was waiting to tell me that he was not proceeding with what everyone had planned, so they did not get anything out of me. They will not get anything out of me, other than what I am pledged to fight for on behalf of my constituents. I am here to represent them, and by the grace of God I am going to do that, and so is my party.

Michael Mates: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who speaks with sound common sense about a subject that she knows well.
	In my 31 years in this place, I have followed the tortuous path from the height of terrorism to something approaching peace from both sides and in many different roles, but I have never heard in the House such genuine anger and concern about a measure that a Government have introduced. The right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, will forgive me if I say, with some affection, that we have had plenty of bluster from him and his hon. Friends, we have had some synthetic rage and we have had thunder and lightning, fire and brimstone. He even once accused me of being a bully, which brought to mind a parable about pots and kettles, but we will pass over that. Never have I seen such genuine upset at something that a Government are doing. The palpable unease of the Secretary of State as he behaved very generously and correctly at the Dispatch Box said it all.
	For most people in Northern Ireland, the measure is almost the last straw. We have gone from the high point of the Good Friday agreement to the even higher point of the referendumand that is when I believe it all started to go wrong. When there were doubts, the Prime Minister went to Northern Ireland during that campaign and, in answer to worries, said, I am going to ensure that there is parallel progress in the implementation of this agreement by all sides. That is exactly what has not happened.
	Measures have been forced on the Government by one side, with no response by the other. First, there were the prison releases. That was difficult, but instead of pausing and saying to the other sideto Sinn Fein-IRAIt's your move they were all let out. I have said this before, but it bears repeatingwhen I complained to the Prime Minister at Question Time one day, I met Mo Mowlam behind the Speaker's Chair. I admired her for many things. It was about five months after the referendum and she said to me, Don't worry, Gerry Adams has promised me that the arms will be gone by Christmas. That was seven long years ago.
	The Government have not learned from those mistakes. They have gone on making concessions. They have gone on doing things behind the scenes, which the right hon. Member for North Antrim rightly pointed out, although he played no part in it. Now, the Government are doing it again. Once again, a move is being made by the Government to move things forward. Why are Sinn Fein-IRA not making moves to move things forward? Why are they not letting the exiles back? Why are they not stopping the punishment beatings? Why are they not taking a grip on the criminality? Why are they still providing a paramilitary police force? No one says, You do that and then we will consider your on-the-run people. It has all been the reverse, and every time yet another concession has been wrung from Government, which has decreased enormously the amount of confidence that the people of Northern Ireland have in the peace process. It has been back to front from the beginning. This is another stage down that road, and it seems to be the last straw for many of us.
	I shall not go over all the arguments; I shall say just two things. First, if the Bill is to go through, it should not go through without some specific guarantee about the exiles being allowed to return. Everybody pays lip service to that. It is not coincidence that it is in all three reasoned amendments, but the Government have nothing to say about it because Sinn Fein have nothing to say about it. Maybe the Government have done a deal. Maybe, when the Bill is passed, Sinn Fein-IRA will say something. Is it not their turn to move first? Should not the Government not be rather more robust in dealing with the matter?
	I hope that the House will forgive me, but I want to be brief and end by saying something about victims, and it is a personal reminiscence. When I was in Northern Ireland, a case came on to my desk of a terrorist who had been convicted of attempted murder, had served 10 years, had moved on to the next stage of his life sentence and was eligible for parole, and I was supposed to sign him off. When I considered the caseI am choosing my words carefully because I do not want the case to be identifiable as I do not know what has happened to the victim or to the terroristI realised that the terrorist lived three or four doors away from the member of the security forces whom he had tried to blow up in his car. For the past 12 years, that person had been in a wheelchair, living with the pain but knowing that justice had been done. The proposition was that 12 years later the terrorist would be released to go back home to the same street.
	Had the attempted murder been successful, it would have been a rather easy decision to make, because everything would have moved on in those 12 years. But there the victim was, still living with the consequences of what this man had done, and when he was released the victim would have to come face to face with him daily. I did not believe that that was acceptable. I was advised that I had no choice, but I said that a way had to be found, and a way was eventually found.
	If the Bill goes through unamended, there will be dozens of cases like the one of which I happen to have personal experience. A lot of people have been convicted and served their sentence, and one can at least say to the poor victim that he had some justice, but now there will be no justice at all. There will be confrontation between victims, their families, descendants of victims and the terrorists, who have paid no price for what they did. That is a fundamental denial of justice, and this therefore is a thoroughly bad Bill.

Peter Robinson: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), although I have to say that her conclusions did not exactly arise from the argument that she presented. I hope that she might reconsider her position even before the Division, and that, if that does happen, her expectation of being on the Committee will still be met.
	For 40 years, murder and brutality have overshadowed life in Northern Ireland. During the worst of those days, as part of what seemed a numbing ritual, Ministers would emerge after each outrage and passionately pledge that the murderers would be tracked down and punished. Over all that time, Northern Ireland Members of this House have followed the coffins, buried the dead, wept with the families and come to this Chamber calling out in righteous anger for action to be taken. We would hear condemnation, receive understanding and be given sympathy. We would listen to the endless obligatory assurances that, no matter how long it took, the people of our war-torn Province could be sure of one thing: justice would be done.
	What value should the victims place on the words of those assurances today? In my time in this House, I have witnessed the passage of some grotesque legislation, but nothing that this House has done before compares with the offence that some Members are about to commit against heaven and earth tonight. Let no Member go into the Lobby unaware of the import of his or her decision. What this House is being asked to do today is against every natural, ethical, moral, spiritual, political and legal principle on which civilisation has been founded.
	At the heart of every ordered society lies the rubric that wrong-doing must be punished. At about this time last year, in my constituency of East Belfast, a young Roman Catholic man was murdered following an incident outside a public house. His name was Robert McCartney. Among those involved in his murder were known members of the Provisional IRA. The IRA had not sanctioned his killing, nor had it planned it. It was clearly not in the interests of that organisation to do that. Indeed, I am even prepared to say that, had the IRA known, it would have done everything it could to stop it.
	Yet, after it took place, the IRA swung into action. It tried to assist those responsible to get away with murder. Its members meticulously cleaned the scene and removed all the forensic evidence. In effect, they adopted the murder ex post facto. Condemnation was swift and widespread, but the police, the Independent Monitoring Commission and the British and Irish Governments were agreed on one issue. By assisting the murderers to escape punishment, the IRA had become partakers in their crime.
	The Government may scantily dress up the provisions of the Bill in whatever legalese they like and attribute to themselves a pretence of worthy motivation in an attempt to cover their moral nakedness. However, in assisting murderers to escape punishment for their heinous crimes, they become partakers in their evil and they will be judged for it.
	Through the Bill, the Government may gain legal authority for their shameful proposals, but the provisions will never gain moral authority. They tell us that they are introducing the Bill to keep the peace process alive. I tell them that they will not build peace on injustice. The blood of the innocent cries out against the measure.
	Looking decidedly uncomfortable, the Prime Minister attempted to justify the Bill. In a transparently implausible defence, he said:
	Under the Good Friday agreement in 1998, people who were convicted and in prison for terrorist offences pre-1998 got released. How can you possibly say they
	the on-the-runs
	should be put in prison if the people already convicted have been let out? That is why there is a symmetry if you like about dealing with prisoners and on-the-runs.
	Either the Prime Minister does not have a sound recollection of what happened to prisoners under the Belfast agreement or he does not know the meaning of the word symmetry.
	Hon. Members will have held their own views about the prisoner provisions of the Belfast agreement, which were enacted in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. I considered them to be morally wrong because they treated terrorists as a favoured class of criminal and accorded them special rights. I considered them to be politically wrong because they were not linked to paramilitary decommissioning and disbandment. I therefore voted against the legislation. However, whatever hon. Members thought of that Bill, it was an early release measure. Prisoners got immediate release only if they had served a third of their sentence, and those who had not were required to serve up to another two years.
	Today's Bill is not an early release measure but a terrorist amnesty Bill. Those who benefit from it will not spend one day in prison either on remand or on conviction. The two situations are not alike. I must tell the Prime Minister that there is no symmetry.
	The Prime Minister's second explanation is that we have to move forward. If he is moving towards a world that ditches justice and embraces murderers, I shall not go with him. If he regards forward movement as building a society in which victims are shamefully and callously treated and vile terrorists rewarded, he can move forward without the people whom I represent. The loathsome Bill is corrupt not only because its intended outcome is to assist murderers to escape punishment but because of the process used to achieve that goal. It defies reason that, under the Bill, accused terrorists will not even be asked to waste their precious time attending court for the farce of a trial. Moreover, some of them will even be able to maintain their anonymity under the provisions.
	Another outrageous provision has been touched on today, but it requires further highlighting. It is the Government's attempt to assist the terrorists to achieve not-guilty verdicts in the poor imitation of a court that the Bill sets up. Clause 7 will exempt a person who holds a certificate issued under the Bill from arrest or detention, from having his or her property searched, and from being fingerprinted. In short, the police will not be allowed to question the accused about the crime that will be brought before the special tribunal. Yet, under clause 3, the certificate will be issued when the police have only
	reasonable grounds for suspecting the applicant to be guilty of an offence.
	A case would never be brought before a court at that stage in normal circumstances. It is the stage at which the police would bring a suspect in for questioning, and at which they would build up the final aspects of their case. It is the stage at which they would follow up the leads that flow from questioning, and at which they would tie up and tidy their evidence. But not under this Bill. Under these provisions, the police will be required to produce their evidence even though it is incomplete, without even having an opportunity to question the suspect. Moreover, if they are denied the right to fingerprint the accused, they will not be able to check whether the person might be connected to any other crimes.

Peter Robinson: Under the Government's proposals, victims will have very few rights. In certain circumstances, they will have the ability to be informed that the case is being considered by the certification officer and will therefore go before the special tribunal. My hon. Friends and I will table amendments that would insert victims' rights into the Bill. They would allow time-limiting of the use of the application system for the terrorists, and open up the system to victims so that, if necessary, cases can be heard in absentia. That would give victims real closure, and those responsible for the crimes would have to serve their sentences.
	I could list a catalogue of cases for which no one has yet been convicted, but I believe that I have made my point. We are not dealing with some tidying-up exercise. We are dealing with lives that have been cruelly and abruptly ended by evil terrorists, and we are dealing with the lives of those who loved them and who are now also victims. We are dealing with people whose hopes and dreams were crushed, and whose lives have been destroyed. We are dealing with decades of hurt and pain.
	The Government have not produced the Bill because they think it right, decent or just. They have produced it because in 2001 at Weston Park and in 2003 at Hillsborough castle they made a shabby deal with the IRA. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is not slow to point out to us all that it is never right to do wrong. This Bill is very wrong.
	There are those who say that if we do not support the Bill, the IRA will go back to bombing and shooting. Is that where this great nation stands? Are we so craven and unprincipled that we cower before a bunch of corner boys and thugs who make demands of us? Are we cringing into submission because savage murderers demand that we throw out due process and British justice, or they will not co-operate with us?

Gordon Banks: I would like to set out the background to the Bill as I see it. Since 1997, we have come a long way. In 1998, we had the Good Friday agreement, leading to the early release of 440 prisoners, and we have also had devolved government. With only 14 early releases being returned to jail for breach of the licence conditionsa 97 per cent. success rateit would appear that the action has been significantly successful.
	Even though devolved government has proved to be difficult to uphold, 1998 and 1999 saw the Patten commission producing a raft of proposals relating to crime and policing. Today, of course, we have heard much about Weston Park in 2001, when the commitment was reiterated to move the peace process forward. Consideration of on-the-runs seemed to emerge from that. In 2004, we had the Independent Monitoring Commission and this year saw the IRA statement ending the armed struggle. September then saw the historic act of decommissioning. Even more recently, we have seen the ending of the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Loyalist Volunteer Force feud and the LVF's decision to stand down.
	Every one of those matters has been difficultdifficult for the Government, difficult for Northern Ireland political parties and difficult for the people of Northern Irelandbut each has moved the peace process forward and improved the stability and quality of life in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is, I believe, a better place in 2005 than it was in 1997, and there has been a 40 per cent. reduction in security-related incidents since 1997. In parallel, unemployment has dropped by 54 per cent. Many, both within and outside the House, should feel a good deal of satisfaction and pride for their role in delivering increased prosperity and stability to Northern Ireland. In view of the steps that I have outlined, it is arguably the case that the Bill is, as the Secretary of State has argued, an evolution of everything that has gone on before.
	In 2002, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid), said in a written answer to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson):
	The Government have acknowledged that there is an issue concerning fugitives on the run who would stand to benefit from the early release scheme if they were convicted. As part of the package of measures proposed at Weston Park last July the Government made a commitment to take steps to resolve this issue.[Official Report, 11 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 705W.]
	What we see today is part of the Government keeping true to that commitment and not hiding from very difficult issues[Interruption.]
	The Bill includes a number of challenging areas, which I would like to deal with. First, some people oppose the Bill on points of principle. While I respect that viewpoint, I do not have to agree with it. For real progress to be made, difficult issues have to be faced and tough decisions have to be taken. That certainly applies to the passage of the Bill.
	I acknowledge that many victims and their families will have difficulties with the proposals, but I would like to make two points. First, the Bill provides a real opportunity to bring closure to many crimesnot for the victims, but for the crimesand the Bill provides specific obligations, as we have heard, in respect of a certification commissioner and special prosecutor to provide a point of liaison for victims, to keep them informed of relevant cases and to see the concerns of victims as central to the role. Furthermore, the requirement for the certification commissioner to put an annual report before Parliament provides an additional level of scrutiny, which I hope is welcomed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Gordon Banks: In the future, we must ensure that crimes such as have been described today do not occur. I do not want to hear that such things are continuing to happen, and I believe that the Bill will help us to make progress in that regard.

Gordon Banks: If my right hon. Friend had written the speech for me, I am sure that it would be much better than my version. The Bill attempts to preserve the current system while addressing a situation that could be quite demanding, legally.
	In various briefings, much has been made about the absence from the Bill of provisions for trial by jury. However, it is vital to understand that it deals with terrorist trials in the same way that all such trials in Northern Ireland are handled, and in which juries do not take part.
	The lack of an end-date to the process has also caused concern for many people.

Patrick Cormack: Oh, they take the money and they like the facilities, but they are not prepared to act as Members of the House; yet they have influenceI would even say malign influence. The leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who made a good speech, quoted what the Prime Minister had said to him about the power of the gun. They were the most chilling words that we have heard in our debate. The hon. Gentleman was honourably elected to lead his party and honourably returned to the House with his friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell), who plays a valuable part in the Select Committee; yet at Weston Park, the Prime Minister pointed out that their words and their influence did not count for as much as that of people who have not eschewed terrorism, because they had not relied on the power of the bullet but on the power of the ballot. That is disgracefulutterly disgraceful.
	I do not know whether those people are personally implicated in any of the crimes that we are obliquely talking about today, but I know that in spite of the declaration in July, which we all welcomed, and in spite of the act of decommissioning that was real, if not totalnone will know how totalthere has not, as I said in an intervention on the Secretary of State, been one word of remorse or contrition.

Patrick Cormack: I do not get injury time for your intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but so be it.
	I was about to make a point that I have made several times this afternoon: those people who are guilty of those acts should at the very least come into an open court before a judge and be faced with their victims. This business of issuing a certificate and sending it, as was said earlier, to their holiday homes is no way of closing or drawing the line; it is itself yet another grotesque act.
	I hope that the Minister will pass on these comments to the Secretary of State, because we all wish him well. Every member of the Select Committee wants to see normality restored, wants to see the peace walls down and wants to see a Northern Ireland in which we can all take pride, but the Bill is not advancing that cause; it is retarding it. It is rewarding those who have caused desperate anguish and have been responsible for some of the worst tragedies in peacetime ever inflicted in our country.
	As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) was speakingand how sensibly she spoke, Mr. Deputy SpeakerI thought again about the peculiar double standards by which we operate. She and I campaigned together at the time of the Bosnian atrocities. She and I would love to see Mladic and Karadzic brought to justice. They are on the run, but would anyone in Her Majesty's Government be happy to give them a little certificate because someone had been sent along to The Hague to say, Well, give them a certificate. They're free now.? Those are the standards that the Government are trying to impose in a part of the United Kingdom for which they are responsible.
	I am glad that the Secretary of State has returnedI am grateful to him. I beg him to listen carefully to what is said in the Chamber. Again, I say to him that the Bill is not by any definition emergency or urgent legislation. It is legislation over which we should take our time. The Bill must be subject to the most critical scrutiny and examination if there is to be any chance at all of creating something from it in which any of us can take any pride at all. As it is, the Bill is a shoddy document. It is fit only for ripping in halfas I now doand nothing else.
	The Secretary of State is a reasonable man who, as I said earlier this afternoon, has exercised great restraint. Will he reflect on what I am sure that he heard this afternoon from the victims' groups? Will he reflect on the fact that almost every single hon. Member on both sides of the House who has taken part in the debate has said that they do not like the Bill? Will he either take the Bill away, which would be the best thing that he could do, or, at the very least, agree that the Select Committee or a Joint Committee of both Houses should be given six weeks to examine the Bill, go through it, take evidence and come up with something that is a little more worthy of the oldest of Parliaments and the greatest bastion of democracy? We are besmirching our reputation if we give a Second Reading to this Bill today.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. May I say, as a friend and colleague, how much I appreciated his contribution to the debate? It must have been difficult for him to share some of his experiences with the House. I appreciate the passion and the emotion with which he spoke.
	Surely, if the process is to go on, the victims must be given some rights. They should have the right to argue the case to the commissioner that a certificate should not be granted to an offender before going to the tribunal. That is a basic right, but the Bill does not afford the victims the right to put a case that the perpetrators should not receive the certificates that they seek. Victims should also have the right to make a statement in the presence of the offenders when they appear before the tribunalif they appear. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East said, when offenders have not come forward, surely victims should have the right to approach the commissioner to establish whether the police have evidence or information about the person or persons responsible for the murder of their loved ones and to ascertain whether there is any intention to pursue tribunal proceedings against those individualsyet not even that right is accorded them.
	The measure contains nothing that enables the victims to receive some form of compensation for the crimes that have been committed against their loved ones. Victims groups ask how the Government are recognising them in the process. Such recognition is not apparent in the Bill. Let me be clearthe victims do not want blood money, but they are entitled to reparation and compensation for their loss. The Government need to deal with that.
	FAIRFamilies Acting for Innocent Relativesin south Armagh recently submitted an application for a memorial centre for victims. As I said earlier, south Armagh is one of those areas where there has been high loss but low detection and conviction of the perpetrators. The Government could not even give the group the money for the memorial centre. They chided the victims group and said that it had to prove that it was engaging in cross-community activities. In south Armagh, that means working with Sinn Fein and republicansthe same Sinn Fein whose councillors on Newry and Mourne council prevented the victims group from hiring a community hall in Newtownhamilton. Thankfully, those councillors have been surcharged and I hope that they will be kicked out of office. The Government expect the victims to work with Sinn Fein in south Armagh, and if they do not they will not get the money for their memorial centre. What an appalling way to treat the innocent victims of terrorist violence. This shows that the Government have double standards. It is time that they gave proper recognition to the victims.
	I welcome the appointment of the victims commissionerthe Secretary of State knows thatbut the commissioner and other groups must be empowered and given due recognition in this process. There is too much money involved. I wonder how much this process will cost the taxpayer in the United Kingdom. I suspect that it will be millions of pounds. Would it not be better to give that money to the victims of IRA violence in Northern Ireland? Even just to build a memorial centre in somewhere like south Armagh would not cost the Government that much, but they cannot even get that right.
	Finally, I want to quote again the Superintendents Association. Its members are senior officers in the police service whose job is to uphold the rule of law, and it has looked at this legislation and found it to be deeply flawed. It states that it will be
	injurious to the overall administration of the Criminal Justice Process in Northern Ireland, and public confidence therein.
	That is the verdict of senior police officers in Northern Ireland, and it was, after all, this Government who told us that we should listen to senior police officers. Should not the Government listen to these senior police officers and catch on? They should drop this legislation and stand by justice and democracy. That is the only way to achieve real peace in Northern Ireland. Appeasement did not work in 1939 and it will not work now. If the IRA is genuine about peace, it should not need to have injustice.

Laurence Robertson: When we think about Northern Ireland, many words come to mindcourage being one in so many instances. Before I deal with the Bill, perhaps I can be allowed to stray for a moment to speak of the courage of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). His must have been a very difficult speech to make, but he made it with his usual commitment to the issue. He will take this in the spirit in which I mean it: he has far more friends in this place than his modesty would allow him to think. I know that he will also take this in the spirit in which I mean it. He is a man with a great sense of humour, and his great strength of character will allow him to come through these difficult times. Every Member looks forward to the eventual return of the humour for which he is well known. He is a great Member of Parliament.
	This has been a very passionate debate. I have been in the House for only eight years, but I cannot think of a time when I have seen the Government under so much fire from every corner of it. We heard a very effective speech from the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who says that he hopes the Government will consider serious amendments to the Bill, and will consider other people rather than just republicans. I think that I quote him accurately.
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said that the Bill undermined assurances given about prisoners during the agreement referendum campaign. He also made the important point that loyalist terrorists have not decommissioned, yet they will benefit from the Bill.
	The right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke with his usual passion. He fairly said that the Bill introduces two systems of justice in Northern Ireland, but I suspect that he would accept that one of those systems is not justice at all.
	As usual, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) spoke extremely well. She pointed out that, in opposition, the Labour party did not always support anti-terrorism legislation. She asked why, if the IRA is no longer a threat, we need the Bill.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) said that there are too many concessions in the Bill and that they all point one way. He provided a moving personal account of the difficulties that he had faced in one instance as a Minister. He argued that the Bill might well lead to Ministers having to take more difficult decisions, perhaps compromising victims' rights time and again.
	The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) expressed great concern about the lack of any deadline in the Bill and the absence of any need for the accused to appear in court.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) spoke about the great injustices of the Bill. He rightly pointed out that, because of the limit on the amount of evidence that can be gathered, it assists in the achievement of non-guilty verdicts by the accused. He spoke movingly about the events that propelled him into politics, which are highly relevant to the issues surrounding the Bill.
	Even the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks)I shall be kinder than others about himexpressed concern about the fact that the accused do not have to appear in court and about the ability of the court to subpoena witnesses, but not those who are accused.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) reminded us, in a wide-ranging speech, that the people that we are talking about in the context of the Bill are just as evil as those who bombed London. He provided a good analogy when he said that on-the-run mass murderers and terrorists from Bosnia would not be given a certificate for freedom.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) spoke about the need to provide victims with justice and truth. Indeed, he felt that the Bill lets those victims down.
	The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) expressed shame at the Government for introducing the Bill and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) appropriately asked exactly what deal was done at Weston Park.
	The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) spoke about the real hurt caused in Northern Ireland by the Bill. He pointed out that the Government said only a week ago that Opposition Members should have listened to police officers in respect of proposals for 90 days, yet police officers are clearly being ignored in respect of this Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who, along with some other colleagues, served in Northern Ireland, made a hard-hitting speech. He condemned the concessions that it seems the Government are making.
	It is important to ask why we need the Bill. The Government have not provided the answer to that question. Who is the Bill for? It is certainly not for the victims, who do not want it. The only political party in favour of the Bill is Sinn Fein. It is rather alarming that the Government are prepared to negotiate with Sinn Fein but will not negotiate with constitutional parties about amendments to the Bill. The Secretary of State said that there was an agreement with the Irish Government, but they are certainly not implementing the terms of the Bill.
	As hon. Members have already asked, what will result if the Bill is defeated? Let us suppose that it does not get through Parliament: what are the Government afraid will happen? The Government say that they believe the IRA when it says that the war is over. That leads me to the question of why the Bill should be introduced now. If the war is perhaps not over, is not the Bill premature?
	We have heard the IRA statement and subsequent confirmation that the IRA has put its arms beyond use, but I am not aware that it has put the proceeds of the bank robbery beyond use. As far as I know, the Government still hold the IRA responsible for that robbery, as do the Irish Government and the police in Northern Ireland. While the IRA has the means to rearm and to pay its volunteers, is not the Bill at least premature?
	The Secretary of State spoke about closurewhat he described in his article in The Times yesterday as the end game. The Good Friday agreement makes it clear that its participants believe that the aims of the criminal justice system should be to
	have the confidence of all parts of the community.
	I do not think that we can say that this Bill has the confidence of all parts of the community when it comes to the so-called justice that it will deliver.
	I shall give a very brief analogy. A few years ago, I and some other hon. Members visited Rwanda, where there had been the most awful genocide. I walked through the bones and skulls of some of the victims of that genocide, and then attended one of the court sessions. About 850,000 people had been massacred, and I said to the Justice Minister, We have all these courts set up, and we are going to send people to prison, yet we are talking about reconciliation. Can we get the reconciliation if we go down that path?
	What a na-ve question for me to ask. The Justice Minister said, We have to have the justice before we can have the reconciliation. That is the point that hon. Members of all parties have tried to make today.
	The Secretary of State said that we can never bring an end to the victims' hurt. That may be true, but we can make that hurt worse. I suspect that that is what the Bill will do.
	The Secretary of State did not help the process with his article in The Times. He wrote that those returning would face the prospect of a full legal process, but that is untrue, as they will not have to appear in court. He added that they would have to go through a special court before being let out on licence, but let out of where, let out of what? Those people will not have been inside for a single day. What a misleading article it was.
	There is not time for me to go through all the Bill's flaws, as I want to give the Minister an appropriate time in which to respond, but I will say that I see the Bill as yet another concession to the IRA. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby asked, what will the next concession be? What will provoke it? Will it be that the IRA starts to make threatening noises again? That is unacceptable in a democracy.
	I do not mean this as a personal comment to the Minister, but he will not be surprised to hear that we will take this Bill very seriously if it reaches Committee.

Mark Durkan: If the Minister is as concerned as he says he is about victims, why are the Government stabbing new grievances into their grief and calling it closure? In relation to the Minister's last comment that the Bill will pave the way for the restoration of the institutions, I ask what will not happen if the Bill is not passed? What will be denied us, in terms of the institutions and the agreement, if the Bill is not passed?

David Lepper: I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Brighton and Hove and others, signed by some 2,000 individuals. The petition
	Declares their objection to the presence of extreme internet sites promoting violence against women in the name of sexual gratification. The petitioners note the recent horrific murder of Brighton school teacher Jane Longhurst by a man who had become an avid user of corrupting internet sites such as 'necrobabes', 'death by asphyxia' and 'hanging bitches'.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Govt and Internet Service Providers to take action to block access to these sites; to introduce legislation to overhaul the Obscene Publications Act to make it a criminal offence to possess such images; to call for better international co-operation to close down sites hosted abroad; and to include internet images in the UK in the remit of OFCOM.
	To lie upon the Table.

Michael Meacher: I wish to raise the case of Susan May in the light of continuing concerns about the safety of her conviction and against the background of new material that has come to light in recent years.
	Mrs. May was imprisoned on 5 May 1993, convicted of murdering her elderly aunt, Mrs. Hilda Marchbank. Mrs. May was Mrs. Marchbank's devoted niece and carer. She has always maintained her innocence, and having served the sentence set down by the court and now been released, she still strongly insists that her name should now be cleared.
	The trial judge said that the main plank of the evidence against Mrs. May was the forensic issues, and I therefore start with those. The three forensic experts from the Forensic Science Service, were Mr. Michael John Davie, Dr. Javaid Hussain and Dr. Wilfred Basely. In June 1996, Mr. Davie was discredited in the Court of Appeal in the case of the Crown v. Doheny, where the conviction was overturned. The Forensic Science Service carried out an internal investigation, the Holman report, regarding Mr. Davie's conduct in Mrs. May's case, and was concerned that his work had fallen short of the standards expected. At second appeal, the prosecution asked that Mr. Davie's evidence should be withdrawn. I should add that the defence was only recently made aware of the contents of the report.
	Regarding the second of the forensic experts at the trial, Dr. Hussain, in May 2004 forensic science students at Paisley university carried out an examination of the evidence that he presented at the trial. He had testified that in his opinion he was certain that the three stains were in blood. Dr. Hussain's area of expertise was fingerprint detection and enhancement, not blood analysis. The students pointed out that the tetra-amino biphenyl test Dr. Hussain used was not a test from which he could draw so certain a conclusion and that it is only a very general screening test. As they said:
	Almost any biological material, in addition to blood, would show positive by this method.
	Indeed, Professor Jamieson, who was formerly a police forensic expert and is now professor of forensic sciences at Glasgow university, has commented that it is very clear that in Mrs. May's case the prosecution forensic experts made declarations well beyond their remit which were prejudicial and damaging.
	Turning to the third forensic expert, after the trial, Mrs. May's then solicitor sought for appeal purposes the assistance of a Forensic Science Service expert, Dr. Basely. That solicitor's behaviour at that time was considered to be actionable by Bindman  Co. solicitors who took over representation of Mrs. May's case.
	My second main point is that Mrs. May's trial solicitor had been advised by Mr. Gartside QC to procure independent forensic expert advice for the defence. That advice was not acted on. The Criminal Cases Review Commission has chosen to use the Forensic Science Service, the same service that carries out work for the police, for its forensic analysis of Mrs. May's case. Again, I simply make the point that a conflict of interest must occur when the same forensic laboratory is asked to represent both parties.
	The third general issue is that the use of DNA evidence in court by the FSS has been growing over the past 15 years, and many convictions have been secured on the basis of such evidence. There is, however, growing disquiet, because the criterion for DNA identification has been raised from identical readings at six locations to identical readings at 10 locations. Even that is now being described as unsatisfactory by Dr. Jefferies, the founding expert in the DNA field, who prefers identification on the basis of identical readings at 15 locations.
	In Mrs. May's case, when the police took the cleaner to the house three days after the murder, they did not ask whether she had seen stains on the wall when she cleaned the house on the day before the murder. Her evidence, which was key to the prosecution case, was only sought some four weeks after Mrs. May's arrest, which was seven weeks after the murder. The cleaner was never given the opportunity to see the stains on the wall. The stain was not taken off the wall until five days after the murder, and it did not arrive at Dr. Basely's laboratory until 29 April, which was about seven weeks after the murder.
	My fourth point concerns the disclosure of evidence to the defence by the police, which fell well short of complete openness. There are a number of examples of non-disclosure or only part disclosure in Mrs. May's case, and I shall briefly present three of them. First, a red car was seen parked outside the house on the night of the murder at approximately 12.45 am. Although the engine was running, there was no one in the car, which was there for 15 minutes. The defence did not draw the jury's attention to those facts. The three occupants have never been identified. Two separate witnesses saw the car. The defence was told that it was never found. Since the second appeal, it has come to light that the police did in fact locate a red car fitting the description. It belonged to the sister of a violent burglar, Michael Rawlinson, who had been drawn to the attention of the police as having been involved in this murder by two people who knew him. The sister had advertised and sold the car within three days of the murder. Forensic evidence taken from the car was never processed.
	Secondly, in the police log for the first day of the investigation, clothing fibres are recorded as having been found on Mrs. Marchbank's hand. When taken to the forensic laboratory, they were described as
	visible fibres from left hand.
	When that exhibit appeared in Mr. Davie's statement, which is the document from which the defence started its investigation, he had recorded them as hairs, which would have been of little interest to the defence because in 1992 hairs were not able to provide a person's identification. Further investigation has shown that the police could not match any of Mrs. May's or the deceased's clothing with those fibres. The jury was robbed of significant discussion regarding the origin of the fibres because of the mischievous labelling of the exhibit.
	Thirdly, the jury were told of an exhibit labelled, Craftsman Baker Paper Baga rather odd descriptionwhich turned out to be a paper bag containing meat scraps that tested positive for blood. There were finger marks on the outside of the bag that should have been tested but were not. All that I can sayI do not think that one could go further than thisis that that exhibit presents an innocent source of blood from which it is possible that Mrs. May could have made the stains on the day prior to the murder, but it was lost to the trial by a sloppy or mischievous forensic process.
	I call on my hon. Friend the Minister to insist, on behalf of the Home Office, that the Criminal Cases Review Commission adopt a policy of forensic examination that is completely independent of the Forensic Science Service, the organisation that carries out most of the police forensic analysis. I further call on her to instigate a system of total disclosure to the defence of all case evidence, from whatever source, that is relevant to this case, without the need for itemised requests.
	After a clearly flawed process, in forensic and legal terms, before and during Mrs. May's trial, those are the minimum conditions required for justice to be seen to be done. I therefore earnestly ask that those procedures be now put in place so that the continuing and significant doubts and uncertainties about this case can finally receive the fullest and most transparent examination of all the relevant facts that have previously been denied.

John McDonnell: It would be useful to put on record that, in this case, neither the volume nor the sensitivity of the material was used as an argument for barring the disclosure of information which I believe could have ensured that this lady would have been proved innocent.